ARTURO MEANA ALVAREZ

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
ARTURO MEANA ALVAREZ
Debtor
CASE NO. 24-03568 (ESL)
CHAPTER 13
FILED AND ENTERED 10/16/2026
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court upon the Creditor Torres’s Memorandum in Support of
Attorney’s Fees (the “Memorandum”, dkt. #126) filed by creditor Lynette Torres Marquez
(“Torres”), the Amended Debtor’s Objection to Allowance of Attorney’s Fees and Bar to Refile1
(the “Objection”, dkt. #143) filed by the Debtor, the Amended Opposition to Debtor’s Objection
to Attorney’s Fees and Bar to Refile2 (the “Opposition to Objection”, dkt. #148) filed by Torres,
and the Motion to Inform (dkt. #155) filed by the Debtor.
For the reasons stated herein, the Amended Debtor’s Objection to Allowance of Attorney’s
Fees and Bar to Refile (dkt. #143) is hereby DENIED and the Creditor Torres’s Memorandum in
Support of Attorney’s Fees (dkt. #126) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the court ALLOWS
attorney’s fees in favor of Torres in the amount of $6,580.00 for having to defend her Proof of
Claim No. 6.
The Debtor is further ENJOINED from filing a bankruptcy petition under any chapter of
the Bankruptcy Code for two (2) years from the date of entry of the Order Dismissing Case, infra.
In addition, the Debtor’s counsel is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within
fourteen (14) days after entry of this Order, why the court should not impose a monetary sanction
of $200.00 against counsel personally for counsel’s repeated failure to comply with the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Local Bankruptcy Rules, including the requirements that
1 The Debtor had previously filed an Objection to Allowance of Attorney’s Fees and Bar to Refile (dkt. #128), but it
was subsequently amended after the court entered an Order on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Filings
with the court (dkt. #141).
2 Torres had previously filed an Opposition to Debtor’s Objection to Attorney’s Fees and DSO Claim (dkt. #147), but
the court will not consider it as it was subsequently amended.
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 10

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
filed papers identify counsel by name, signature, and bar admission number, despite the court’s
prior warnings.
Procedural Background
1. 	The instant case was dismissed on March 27, 2026, when the court entered an
Order Dismissing Case (the “Order Dismissing Case”, dkt. #121) granting FirstBank Puerto
Rico’s Motion to Dismiss for arrears on plan payments (dkt. #105). The court further found cause
for dismissal because the Debtor failed to submit required monthly operating reports, failed to
address the Chapter 13 Trustee’s unfavorable reports regarding confirmation of the Amended
Chapter 13 Plan, and had not resolved significant confirmation deficiencies under 11 U.S.C.
§1325. The court concluded that confirmation of a feasible Chapter 13 Plan within a reasonable
time was unlikely and ordered the Debtor to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why the
court should not bar him from filing another bankruptcy petition for a period of two (2) years.
2. 	On the same date, and prior to entering the Order Dismissing Case, the court had
entered an Opinion and Order (dkt. #120) denying the Debtor’s objection to Proof of Claim No.
6 by Torres (dkt. #87) and denying Torres’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. #113) regarding
Torres’ previous request for dismissal (dkt. #86), not on the merits, but for failure to meet the
summary judgment requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, made applicable to contested matters
in bankruptcy by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 (c) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056. In the Opinion and
Order, the court granted Torres’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees for having to defend Proof
of Claim No. 6 and ordered Torres to submit a memorandum setting forth the amount of attorneys’
fees sought. The court allowed a period of twenty-one (21) days thereafter for any opposition to
the amount requested by Torres. The court also noted that the signature block at the end of the
Debtor’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Support of Objection to Claim and Opposing
Dismissal (dkt. #114) omitted the name, bar admission number, and signature of the Debtor’s
counsel. In light of these omissions, the court reminded the parties of the importance of
compliance with the applicable rules and cautioned that future noncompliance may result in
sanctions as provided by those rules.
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 10

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3. 	In compliance with the Opinion and Order (dkt. #120), on April 9, 2026, Torres
filed the Memorandum requesting $6,580.00 for attorneys’ fees and submitting evidence in
support thereof.
4. 	On May 21, 2026, the court entered an Order on Use of Generative Artificial
Intelligence in Filings with the Court (dkt. #141) wherein, among other things, the court issued a
second warning to the Debtor’s counsel after he again omitted his name, bar admission number,
and signature from the signature block, this time in the Objection to Allowance of Attorney’s Fees
and Bar to Refile (dkt. #128), in violation of P.R. L.B.R. 1005-1(c) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(a).
Noting that counsel had failed to act on the prior warning in the Opinion and Order (dkt. #120)
that future noncompliance could result in sanctions, the court again admonished him to avoid
further noncompliance.
5. 	On May 21, 2026, the Debtor filed the Objection addressing both (i) the court’s
order for the Debtor to show cause as to why the court should not bar him from filing another
bankruptcy petition for a period of two (2) years (dkt. #121); and (ii) the Memorandum filed by
Torres requesting $6,580.00 for attorneys’ fees.
6. 	In response, Torres filed the Opposition to Objection on June 8, 2026.
7. 	On June 19, 2026, the Debtor filed a Motion to Inform (dkt. #155) addressing
various points from Torres’ Opposition to Objection.
Position of the Parties
A. 	The Debtor
i. 	Bar to Refile
The Debtor maintains that the record does not support a finding of bad faith or abuse of the
bankruptcy process that would warrant a bar to refile for two (2) years. He asserts that he filed the
instant bankruptcy case as a good-faith effort to reorganize; that he has not engaged in serial or
abusive bankruptcy filings; that there is no evidence he intended to hinder, delay, or defraud
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 10

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
creditors; and that the adult beneficiaries3 do not support the refiling bar. According to the Debtor,
the request for a bar to refile is based only on unsubstantiated allegations.
The Debtor argues that dismissal with prejudice requires “cause” under 11 U.S.C. §349(a),
that 11 U.S.C. §109(g) authorizes a 180-day bar only in its specified circumstances, and that relief
under 11 U.S.C. §105(a) requires an adequate showing of bad faith or abuse.
ii. 	Attorneys’ Fees
In the Objection, the Debtor did not directly address the merits Torres’ requested amount
for attorney’s fees in the Memorandum. Instead, the Debtor argued that Torres lacked standing to
file Proof of Claim No. 6 because two (2) of their three (3) children are now of legal age.
B. 	Torres
i. 	Bar to Refile
Torres characterizes the Debtor’s response to the court’s show-cause directive concerning
a potential bar to refiling as a “red herring,” asserting that neither she nor ASUME seeks such
relief. Nevertheless, Torres maintains that, should the court consider a refiling bar or other
sanctions, the Debtor’s prior conduct, including the Puerto Rico court of Appeals’ finding of
manifestly frivolous litigation, would support such relief.
ii. 	Attorneys’ Fees
Torres argues that the Debtor’s Objection provides no basis to deny the requested
attorney’s fees because it does not challenge the amount requested or cite legal authority
establishing that the previously awarded fees are unwarranted. Torres further contends that the
Debtor’s conduct in the bankruptcy case, particularly his alleged relitigation of state-court issues,
unsupported motions, and use of his children’s letters as litigation instruments, independently
warrants fees or sanctions under 11 U.S.C. §105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.
3 In support of the Objection, the Debtor submitted two letters signed by Paula Sofía Meana Torres and Lynnette Marie
Meana Torres noting the dates in which they reached the majority of age and stating that they were not aware of the
filing of any claims “to prevent or restrict [the Debtor] from pursuing alternative payment arrangements, nor from
seeking relief under applicable bankruptcy laws” and that they do not consent to or support “the claims and motions
filed on [their] behalf” (dkt. #143, pp. 6-7).
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 10

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In response to the Debtor’s argument that Torres lacked standing to file Proof of Claim
No. 6, Torres argues that the claim was properly filed because it involves distinct rights held by
the minor child, Torres personally as the custodial parent who paid obligations allegedly owed by
the Debtor, and ASUME as the statutory administrator of the support obligation. Thus, Torres
contends that the adult daughters’ consent was not required.
Applicable Law and Discussion
A. 	Bar to Refile
The first issue this court must address is whether a two-year bar to refiling is warranted in
light of the circumstances of this case and the Debtor’s arguments in the Objection and the Motion
to Inform. In the Order Dismissing Case entered on March 27, 2026, the court granted FirstBank
Puerto Rico’s Motion to Dismiss based on arrears in plan payments. The court further found cause
for dismissal because the Debtor had failed to submit required monthly operating reports, address
the Chapter 13 Trustee’s unfavorable reports concerning confirmation of the Amended Chapter
13 Plan, and resolve significant confirmation deficiencies under 11 U.S.C. §1325. Concluding
that confirmation of a feasible plan within a reasonable time was unlikely, the court directed the
Debtor to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why he should not be barred from filing
another bankruptcy petition for two (2) years.
The Debtor opposes the bar to refile, maintaining that he commenced this case as a good-
faith effort to reorganize and that the record does not establish bad faith, serial or abusive filings,
or an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. He further asserts that the adult beneficiaries
do not support a refiling bar and that the proposed restriction rests on unsubstantiated allegations.
The Debtor relies on 11 U.S.C. §§349(a), 109(g), and 105(a) in support of his opposition to the
proposed two-year refiling bar. The court must therefore determine whether the record supports
the additional restriction of a two-year bar to refiling.
The Bankruptcy Code provides a 180-day bar to refile for individuals after a case is
dismissed if dismissal was due to a debtor's failure to abide by court or appear before the court in
proper prosecution of the case, or if a debtor voluntarily dismissed a case after the filing of a
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 10

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
request for relief from the automatic stay. See, 11 U.S.C. §109(g). The court may also enter a bar
to refile under 11 U.S.C. §349(a), which states that the dismissal of a case is without prejudice
“unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise”. The court has “authority to sanction serial or bad
faith filers by baring future filings for reasons and longer periods of time other than those specified
by 11 U.S.C. § 109(g), from either 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), 11 U.S.C. § 349(a), or both.” In re Correa,
2024 WL 3714494, at *13. See also, Gonzalez-Ruiz v. Doral Fin. Corp., 341 B.R. 371, 386
(B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2006). “Dismissals with prejudice are [ ] generally reserved for extreme
situations, such as when a debtor conceals information from the court, violates injunctions, files
unauthorized petitions, or acts in bad faith”. In re Ortiz Jimenez, 2019 WL 2369510, at *3 (Bankr.
D.P.R. 2019), quoting In re Hall, 304 F.3d 743, 746 (7th Cir. 2002).
The court finds that the following factors add up in considering a bar to refile in the instant
case: (1) the Debtor's prior bankruptcy petitions (see, Bankr. Case No. 13-03154 (dismissed on
Debtor’s failure to file all the documents and/or information required by 11 U.S.C. §521(a)); and
Bankr. Case No. 13-08779 (closed in January 2019 after the court entered a Discharge Order on
December 26, 2018)); (2) the Debtor's attempt to reopen Bankr. Case No. 13-08779 to file an
adversary proceeding against Torres and ASUME and his subsequent request for voluntary
dismissal thereof shortly before filing the instant bankruptcy case; (3) the fact that there is a final
state determination issued by ASUME and confirmed on appeal in Torres’ favor; and (4) the
multiple deficiencies identified by the court in the Order Dismissing Case.
The Debtor's conduct qualifies as the conspicuous behavior that warrants a dismissal with
prejudice. Accordingly, the Debtor’s Objection is DENIED, and the Debtor is prohibited from
filing a bankruptcy petition under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code for two (2) years.
B. 	Attorneys’ Fees
In the Opinion and Order entered on March 27, 2026 (dkt. #120), the court awarded
attorney’s fees to Torres for having to defend Proof of Claim No. 6, directed Torres’ counsel to
submit a memorandum specifying the amount sought, and established a deadline for the Debtor
to file an opposition thereto. Counsel for Torres timely submitted the Memorandum and
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 10

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
documentation in support thereof. Although the Debtor filed the Objection and the Motion to
Inform, he did not address the merits of the fees requested by Torres, challenge any specific billing
entry, or contest the amount sought.
Considering 	the 	above 	and 	having 	reviewed 	the 	Memorandum 	and 	supporting
documentation submitted by Torres, the court finds the attorney’s requested fees reasonable and
ALLOWS attorney’s fees in favor of Torres in the amount of $6,580.00.
C. Compliance with the Applicable Rules and Orders Entered by the Court
The court now turns to Debtor’s counsel’s repeated noncompliance with P.R. L.B.R.
1005-1(c) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(a), notwithstanding the court’s several prior warnings. The
parties are obligated to comply with all applicable rules, including the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, the Puerto Rico Local Bankruptcy Rules, and the orders entered by the
court. Failure to comply, after notice and an opportunity to respond where required, may warrant
appropriate sanctions or other relief.
In the instant case, the court previously advised counsel that every filing must include
counsel’s name, signature, and attorney bar number, and that failure to comply may result in the
imposition of sanctions. See, dkts. ##120, 141. In addressing that requirement, the court
considered the provisions of P.R. L.B.R. 1005-1(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 9011(a), which provide,
in relevant part, as follows:
[e]ach paper filed must include a signature block with the name,
mailing 	address, 	email 	address, 	and 	telephone 	and 	facsimile
numbers of the party or attorney filing the paper. The signature
block for attorneys must include the law firm’s name, the name of
the client, and the attorney’s bar admission number for the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
Electronic signatures of debtors, attorneys, trustees, and all other
filers must comply with the LBR 5005-4.
P.R. L.B.R. 1005-1(c) (boldface added).
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 10

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Similarly, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(a) provides that:
[e]very petition, pleading, written motion, and other document—
except a list, schedule, or statement, or an amendment to one of
them—must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the
attorney's individual name. A party not represented by an attorney
must sign all documents. Each document must state the signer's
address and telephone number, if any. The court must strike an
unsigned document unless the omission is promptly corrected
after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.”
Fed. R. Bankr. R. 9011(a) (oldface added).
In the Opinion and Order (dkt. #120), the court reminded the parties of the importance of
complying with these rules and advised them that future noncompliance may result in sanctions.
On this point, a party that does not comply with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or
the Puerto Rico Local Bankruptcy Rules may be subject to penalties, including monetary
sanctions, the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees payable to opposing counsel, and/or
dismissal of the case or proceeding. See P.R. L.B.R. 9011-3(a). See also, P.R. L.B.R. 1001-1(f).
Further, per Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(a), “[t]he court must strike an unsigned document unless the
omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention”.
After the court entered the Opinion and Order (dkt. #120) where the court warned the
parties that future noncompliance with the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Puerto Rico
Local Bankruptcy Rules, which require that every paper filed with the court must be signed by an
attorney, and include their name, bar admission number for the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico, and other relevant information may result in sanctions, counsel for the
Debtor has continued to disregard and fail to comply with such rules. Specifically, counsel for the
Debtor has made the following deficient filings:
1. 	Debtor’s Objection to Allowance of Attorney’s Fees and Bar to Refile (dkt. #128)
(did not include attorney name, attorney signature, attorney bar admission number)
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 10

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2. 	Motion Requesting Entry of Order Granting Debtor’s Objection to Allowance of
Attorney’s Fees and Bar to Refile (dkt. #132) (did not include attorney’s bar
admission number)
3. 	Motion to Retain Jurisdiction (dkt. #133) (did not include attorney’s bar admission
number)
4. 	Motion in Compliance with Court Order Regarding Use of Generative Artificial
Intelligence in Filings with the Court (dkt. #142) (did not include attorney’s bar
admission number)
5. 	Amended Debtor’s Objection to Allowance of Attorney’s Fees and Bar to Refile
(dkt. #143) (did not include attorney name, attorney signature, attorney bar
admission number)
6. 	Motion to Inform (dkt. #155) (did not include attorney’s bar admission number)
7. 	Motion Requesting Extension of Time (dkt. #156) (did not include attorney’s bar
admission number)
8. 	Motion Requesting Entry of Application for Compensation Filed by Attorney for
Debtor as per Trustee Compliance Report (dkt. #170) (did not include attorney’s
bar admission number)
Conclusion
In light of the above, the court orders the following:
1. 	The Debtor is prohibited from filing a bankruptcy petition under any chapter of the
Bankruptcy Code for two (2) years.
2. 	The court finds the attorney’s requested fees reasonable and ALLOWS attorney’s fees
in favor of Torres in the amount of $6,580.00.
3. 	The Debtor’s counsel is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14)
days after entry of this Opinion and Order, why the court should not impose a
monetary sanction of $200.00 against counsel personally for counsel’s repeated failure
to comply with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Puerto Rico Local
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 9 of 10

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Bankruptcy Rules, including the requirements that filed papers identify counsel by
name, signature, and bar admission number, despite the court’s prior warnings (see,
dkts. #120 and, #141).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16 th day of October 2026.
Case:24-03568-ESL13 Doc#:174 Filed:10/16/26 Entered:10/16/26 13:23:26 Desc: Main
Document Page 10 of 10